Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals

[cawacko]

As a real estate person this jumped out at me. This property owner got sued, and lost, for removing graffiti from his building. WTF? I read the article and still don't understand. So much for private property rights.




Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals


Ruling that graffiti — a typically transient form of art — was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law, a federal judge in Brooklyn awarded a judgment of $6.7 million on Monday to 21 graffiti artists whose works were destroyed in 2013 at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City, Queens.

In November, a landmark trial came to a close in Federal District Court in Brooklyn when a civil jury decided that Jerry Wolkoff, a real estate developer who owned 5Pointz, broke the law when he whitewashed dozens of swirling murals at the complex, obliterating what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”

Though Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone’s else property.

In an odd legal twist, the judge at that trial, Frederic Block, altered the verdict at the 11th hour to make it merely a recommendation. But on Monday, Judge Block upheld the jury’s decision, and his ruling awarded the artists the maximum damages possible, saying that 45 of the dozens of ruined murals had enough artistic stature to merit being protected. The jury had found that only 36 of the works should be guarded under V.A.R.A.

From the start, the 5Pointz case had pitted two of New York City’s most prominent sectors against each other: the art world and the real estate business. Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive victory for the former, said Dean Nicyper, a partner who specializes in art law at the firm Withers Bergman.

“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized as deserving protection,” Mr. Nicyper said, adding that courts have ruled that clothing designers who cribbed ideas from graffiti artists were liable for intellectual theft. But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the first time that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A.

David Ebert, a lawyer for Mr. Wolkoff, did not return a call seeking comment.

Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, hailed the judgment, calling it “a victory not only for the artists in this case, but for artists all around the country.”

“The clear message is that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,” Mr. Baum said. “With this win, the spirit of 5Pointz becomes a legacy for generations of artists to come.”


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/1...NyZeqSk8?amp=1

[Cancel 2018.2]

This makes zero sense. First off, graffiti is a crime. Secondly the act was not intended to protect graffiti and lastly this flies in the face of real property law.

Cities remove graffiti all the time, this ruling makes them liable so long as some jury or judge decides it has enough artistic stature. Imagine someone painting the Statute of Liberty or Mount Rushmore or your home and some jury or judge says too bad, you're liable if you take it down.

This case must be taken to the Supreme Court and overturned for being a completely irrational ruling that flies in the face of precedent.

[PostmodernProphet]

As a real estate person this jumped out at me. This property owner got sued, and lost, for removing graffiti from his building. WTF? I read the article and still don't understand. So much for private property rights.




Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals


Ruling that graffiti — a typically transient form of art — was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law, a federal judge in Brooklyn awarded a judgment of $6.7 million on Monday to 21 graffiti artists whose works were destroyed in 2013 at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City, Queens.

In November, a landmark trial came to a close in Federal District Court in Brooklyn when a civil jury decided that Jerry Wolkoff, a real estate developer who owned 5Pointz, broke the law when he whitewashed dozens of swirling murals at the complex, obliterating what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”

Though Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone’s else property.

In an odd legal twist, the judge at that trial, Frederic Block, altered the verdict at the 11th hour to make it merely a recommendation. But on Monday, Judge Block upheld the jury’s decision, and his ruling awarded the artists the maximum damages possible, saying that 45 of the dozens of ruined murals had enough artistic stature to merit being protected. The jury had found that only 36 of the works should be guarded under V.A.R.A.

From the start, the 5Pointz case had pitted two of New York City’s most prominent sectors against each other: the art world and the real estate business. Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive victory for the former, said Dean Nicyper, a partner who specializes in art law at the firm Withers Bergman.

“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized as deserving protection,” Mr. Nicyper said, adding that courts have ruled that clothing designers who cribbed ideas from graffiti artists were liable for intellectual theft. But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the first time that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A.

David Ebert, a lawyer for Mr. Wolkoff, did not return a call seeking comment.

Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, hailed the judgment, calling it “a victory not only for the artists in this case, but for artists all around the country.”

“The clear message is that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,” Mr. Baum said. “With this win, the spirit of 5Pointz becomes a legacy for generations of artists to come.”


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/1...NyZeqSk8?amp=1

can this be appealed on the grounds of incredible stupidity on the part of the judge?......

[cawacko]

can this be appealed on the grounds of incredible stupidity on the part of the judge?......

Could the building owner counter sue for trespassing and vandalism for $6.8mm then add an additional say $24mm for anguish?

[Bourbon]

The clear message is .... that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,

[PraiseKek]

The clear message is .... that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,

No the message is the judge needs to be removed from the bench for even allowing this case to be heard, this is fucking laughable, if I was the defendant I would tell the judge to eat a dick, go to his and the plaintiffs homes, burn them down, and call it an artistic expression of rage.

I have no problem with graffiti artists they can do what they do on PUBLIC property.

How is this guy even a fucking judge? Even if the statute was applicable (which it clearly is not) has this stupid fuck never read the Constitition?


5th amendment: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

[PostmodernProphet]

Interesting......nothing in the entire section provides for monetary damages.....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1

[RB 60]

The clear message is .... that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,

If I came to your home and spray painted your home (and got away without being shot), by calling it "art," should I be able to sue you if you washed it off?
Just askin'

[Bourbon]

No the message is the judge needs to be removed from the bench for even allowing this case to be heard, this is fucking laughable, if I was the defendant I would tell the judge to eat a dick, go to his and the plaintiffs homes, burn them down, and call it an artistic expression of rage.

I have no problem with graffiti artists they can do what they do on PUBLIC property.

How is this guy even a fucking judge? Even if the statute was applicable (which it clearly is not) has this stupid fuck never read the Constitition?


5th amendment: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Awww ... Mammy didn't give you enough (.)(.)